82SiouxGuy

Thanks for the info. I have been following the LAX discussion from the beginning and I like the idea. But I must have missed the numbers, or forgot about them. They aren't bad for a new team sport. I think that you're right about having some potential as a spectator sport. I'm sure that the Alerus Center would love that. It is definitely worth exploring further.

It would be nice to have some numbers to see what it would cost for coaches, uniforms, equipment and travel. If it had a chance to cash flow after a few years, or even come close, it would make a lot of sense. If it is going to be a large money drain then it probably wouldn't make sense in the next few years because of the transition to D 1 and the increasing costs for that.

Tribal support was always a bogus argument. The only consistency is that they are always right.

Yes, both name and logo are on the list. Anything with Native American imagery or reference. There was one school that just had 1 or 2 feathers on their logo and they had to change it.

The latest auction of game worn hockey jerseys is up on Fighting Sioux Sports. They are also auctioning off chances to play golf with a variety of Sioux coaches at the various Sioux-Per Swing golf events.

The Cubbies are the exception that proves the rule. Actually, the Cubs and the Atlanta Braves built up a huge nationwide following in the days when they were the only baseball teams that everyone could watch almost every day. WTBS and WGN built the following for those teams with the Cubs playing mainly afternoon games and the Braves playing right after them in the evening. Wrigley Field added to it for the Cubs.

You are right. When a team is winning or going to national tournaments it translates into more tickets sold and more merchandise sold. When teams start losing then ticket sales drop and so do merchandise sales. Everyone likes a winner.

Marquette and Dartmouth have been mentioned as examples of schools that handled a change poorly. If it is done poorly it won't work. A lot of other schools have made a change and made it work quite well. So the odds are that it can be done well. A new name is not going to please everyone. The more entrenched a person is in keeping the current name, the harder it will be for them to accept any new name. If the change is made the University will have to work very hard to find a name that works for a large number of people. But no answer will please everyone. There is no way that UND will make an announcement before every game that bashes the NC$$. That would be committing a slow suicide. Don't you think that the NC$$ would find a way to put a stop to that, and maybe punish the University in some way? As far as telling broadcasters anything and hoping they will pass along the information, good luck. Some will listen, some won't and some just won't care. Who had what logo first isn't exactly at the top of their list of interesting topics. It would be tough to get much traction with that campaign with the small number of national games that UND will play. It isn't a bad thing to do, I just don't think it would have a huge effect. I haven't heard any new nickname that jumps out at me yet. I don't know if I will. It will be tough to come close to what UND uses now. I have heard some that I think should be kept under consideration, including a few on your list that I have not heard before.

Let's think about it. If the Fighting Sioux name is officially dropped, but no new name is chosen, what do you think will happen? What will people call the teams? Why have you been advocating that? Oh yeah, so fans could still use the Fighting Sioux name even though it isn't the "official" name. In other words, the name wouldn't really go away. Do you think that the NC$$ wants that to happen? Do you think that the SBoHE is going through all of this hassle so they can have that happen? Do you think that the UND administration really wants that to happen? The answer to the last 3 questions is NO. If there is no new nickname then the old one will not really be gone. And none of the groups that are in charge of this situation are going to let that happen.

It's interesting that you have reached the point where you are putting words in my mouth. I never even suggested that you would be the only person that would avoid merchandise with a new nickname. As a matter of fact, I have repeatedly said that there would be people that would not buy that merchandise. I have just said that more people would buy merchandise with a new name than would buy merchandise with no nickname. Like in this post. Your reading comprehension skills may need some work. And in my discussion with you I have never talked about what I would like to see happen regarding the nickname. I have predicted what I believe will happen based on a variety of factors, and said that I have accepted that eventuality. There is a huge difference between what I would like to happen and what I believe will happen. One is fantasy, the other is based in reality.

People buy merchandise because it's new and improved all of the time. This would be another example. You wouldn't, we got that. A lot of people would. Did I say that 100% of people agreed on anything? No I didn't. I said that you disagreed with people more than most people do. Not even close to the same. What you can't figure out is that the UND administration and the SBoHE don't want continuity with the Fighting Sioux nickname. The name is causing them problems so they will want a complete and total break with it. They won't want people using Fighting Sioux all of the time. They can't do anything about people wearing Sioux clothing. But they can put a replacement in place and encourage people to use that instead. That's why they will put in motion a process for a new name.

I didn't realize that you were a marketing professional. We have covered A already. UND fans would buy some merchandise without a nickname, but probably not as much. Casual fans would not buy nearly as much without a logo as they would with a new name and logo. A new nickname and new logo would create excitement which could be transferred to sales. That is a lot of money to leave on the table. And it would be a huge risk to go without a name, UND administration isn't going to take that risk on top of all the other risks they are currently taking. I don't care if you're not convinced about either of your "counterpoints". Obviously no one can convince you of anything and everyone on this board wastes their time trying. But don't you find it interesting that so many people disagree with you about so many things?

I have no inside information. But there are way too many reasons that not having a nickname is not as good an option as choosing a new nickname. There has to be a reason that no other Division I school has chosen to go that route for any length of time. Not since nicknames came into popular usage. There has to be a reason that Newberry College has chosen to not follow the no nickname route even though they have people that want to do that. Remember the article you tried to use yesterday where they were quoted as saying: Besides all that my marketing degree and years of experience in sales and marketing tell me that selling a new nickname and logo is going to be much more lucrative in the long term than going with no nickname. That's why I am pretty sure that if the nickname actually goes away it will be replaced with something new.

UND would have to pay more in royalties than they could make selling merchandise. The last time anyone from UND tried to bring Kermit to hockey games they were threatened with legal action.

The article in the GF Herald said that they would be playing for Team USA so they would have probably missed most, if not all of the college hockey season anyway. Maybe that's why they decided to make a change now.

I have no idea why this is happening. But it could very easily make UND one of the contenders for the NC$$ title in 2010-2011.

My guess is that it is related to the news found on the Women's Hockey page. A certain set of twin sisters are leaving the UMTC Golden Gophers program and may be returning to Grand Forks.

That's because you don't want to have a new nickname. You aren't going to approach the process with an open mind, so nothing is going to work for you. You are going to fight the idea tooth and nail. But no matter how much you stomp your feet or hold your breath, the process is going to continue. Unless someone pulls off a Hail Mary and finds a way to save the current nickname, it will go away and UND will select a new name. And then you are going to have to find a new team to cheer for since you will refuse to cheer for the University of North Dakota ________________.

I have been trying to say the same thing. If they are well done, merchandise with a NEW logo and a NEW nickname will sell a lot more than anything that just says North Dakota or UND. Americans want to buy the latest and greatest.

I already have admitted that there is a lot of support for no nickname. There's even more support for keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname. I don't think the chances of that happening are very good. And I don't think the chances of going with no nickname for more than 1-3 years are any better. Believe what you want, and support what you want. My prediction is that well before 2015 the University of North Dakota will be using a new nickname and logo. My guess is that it will happen about the same time they start playing in the Summit League.

Some people are going to be upset no matter what happens with the nickname.

Did you even read the article? Newberry is in the same place that UND is facing, only about 1 year ahead in time. They were forced to drop their NA nickname. They were the Indians. Now: In other words, they are doing the "no-nickname thing" for a short time while they find something new. And how is that "no-nickname thing" working for them? The second school mentioned in the article is a Division III school, McMurry of Abilene, Texas. They were also the Indians and had to lose the name in 2006. They are also taking the transition slow. This quote sounds like a lot of UND fans. That doesn't mean that they aren't going to choose a new name, they are taking their time and haven't made any decisions yet. Of course they aren't under the same pressures that UND is facing. And the third school mentioned is a women's school in Roanoke, VA named Hollins. They are also in Division III. They have never had a nickname. So I was wrong, there is a school that has operated for a while without a nickname. The only difference is it's a Division III women's college. Not quite the same situation as a school in a prominent battle with the NC$$ and local Native American tribal councils. A school that has to live up to a court settlement about the nickname. A school in the process of moving its entire athletic department to Division 1. A school looking for a conference with very few possibilities. Not quite the same, but close. Congratulations Dave, you have managed to find almost a perfect match in situations, something that UND can use as a road map for going without a nickname. Well done.

I used Dartmouth as an example of a name change that was poorly done in an earlier post. Marquette is another. But many schools and even professional teams have changed their nickname successfully. Central is an example of a change that is successful but is still in progress. Most people now use the Knights name, some people that were around earlier still revert to Redskins. I normally use Knights although I sometimes think Redskins. I agree totally that it is a shame that the Fighting Sioux nickname will probably have to go away. As long as the NA nicknames were used with respect I think that they were potentially a tool to educate people about Native Americans. They definitely kept the tribes names alive. It will be sad if they become forgotten because of this forced change. I supported keeping the Fighting Sioux nickname right up until the recent developments. However, I realized during the lawsuit that the odds were slim, and the settlement made them slimmer. I was in favor of putting in the effort to try to keep the name and logo intact. The SBoHE did not put in the effort needed. Now it is more important to increase the odds of getting into an auto-bid conference for most sports. Not getting into a conference could damage the entire Athletic Department, and I still think that the odds of keeping the name long term would be very slim even if they used the entire length of time in the settlement. That's why I have accepted the decision to make the change if they can't reach an agreement with the tribes by October 1. I don't like it, but I can live with it. Not having a nickname would put UND in a unique position. I don't know if that would be a good thing or not. There has to be a reason that no one else has done that. My guess is that it is easier to sell a name and logo than not having one to sell.

You have misunderstood my meaning. We discussed in a different thread that the NC$$ would have a hard time trying to enforce any kind of ban on fan clothing and possibly even advertising using tribal imagery. I have stated before that I believe many fans will continue to wear Sioux clothing for several years. I may do it myself, I have enough to last for years. If UND goes without a nickname people will definitely continue to use the Sioux name. That doesn't end the current situation and the administration will not want that to happen. Nickname opponents will continue to complain about the name. The NC$$ may try to step in again. Nothing goes away if UND is "unofficially" known as the Sioux because they have nothing else to call the team. A cooling off and transition period will probably happen, but long term the administration and the SBoHE will not allow the school to go without a nickname. Choosing a new nickname will probably be seen as starting the healing process. The school will be able to say that they are encouraging fans to start using the new name and wearing clothing with the name. And that encouragement of the new name automatically discourages use of the old name without actually having to say anything. More and more people will actually switch over and use the new name. If chosen well it could become very popular. The school and the government won't have the power to control what you or anyone else thinks. But just like any business marketing a product, they will try to influence their customers to use the new name and logo through their marketing campaign. I agree that there will be a spike in Fighting Sioux merchandise sales. As a matter of fact, I said that same thing in another thread several days ago. And fans will buy merchandise that says University of North Dakota. The reason I believe that sales could increase with a new logo, if it is a good name and logo, is the casual fan. For example, I have been told that college students in Boston like to wear UND sweatshirts because they like the logo. Casual fans will buy stuff if it looks good, is catchy or is fun. That would be the extra sales I was referring to in the original post. Again, it's a marketing thing. You and several others have stated your preference for going without a nickname. I understand your reasoning. But I don't believe that anyone in authority in this situation is going to want that to happen. They are going to want to find a clean break and then start fresh for the reasons I stated above and probably for several others that I haven't thought of.

Thanks for bringing that part up. I had forgotten about that. I have a friend that was part of the construction management team for the project and I believe that you're right. Time was money for Ralph and any delay was a huge problem for him. He didn't seem to let problems hold him back, he found a solution. So keeping the name and keeping the project moving on his schedule were probably at least part of his motivation.